Bernard Depaoli, Petitioner-appellant, v. Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Respondent-appellee, 103 F.3d 138 (9th Cir. 1996)

 Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 103 F.3d 138 (9th Cir. 1996) Submitted Dec. 2, 1996. *Decided Dec. 06, 1996

Before: SNEED, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM** 

Bernard C. DePaoli, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, Duckett v. Godinez, 67 F.3d 734, 739 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1549 (1996), and affirm.

DePaoli contends that the trial court's denial of a continuance violated his right to effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the denial of relief on this claim for the reasons stated in the district court's thorough order filed on March 12, 1996.

Because DePaoli has failed to allege facts entitling him to relief, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his habeas petition without first holding an evidentiary hearing. See Greyson v. Kellam, 937 F.2d 1409, 1412 (9th Cir. 1991).1 

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4. In addition, because we affirm the denial of relief under the former version of 28 U.S.C. § 2254, we do not consider whether the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 applies to this appeal

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

 1

On appeal, DePaoli also contends that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing based on "newly discovered" evidence. Because Depaoli did not present this issue to the district court, we decline to consider it here. See Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir. 1994)

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.